It’s a great point to bring up South Park in regard to a class such as this one. Honestly, I’m surprised South Park has never been brought up before in our class discussions. If there is one show on the air right now that will simply hold no punches, this is undoubtedly it. For over ten years, creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone have taken the art of satire in modern media to a whole new level. And they don’t just “play it safe” with their wit and sarcasm; the show goes after virtually every religious, racial, sexual, political, and cultural group that exists in our world and will poke fun of anyone for any reason, justified or unjustified. I admire their boldness and respect their bravery in not being afraid to speak their minds about relevant cultural issues and figures. Parker and Stone certainly have no fear about calling out celebrities, politicians, or any other public figure who they feel needs to be put in his or her place. I honestly don’t think that there is enough of this today. Also, I feel that there are plenty of people in popular culture today, like comedians, who will make fun of other people all the time but will do so with a narrow scope. South Park will make fun of anyone; they spend perhaps even more time on the show mocking the stupidity and ignorance of the stereotypical white adult population of the fictional town as they do making fun of anyone else.

These two men have great minds for comedy. The show also manages to stay much more culturally relevant than any other show on television because of the style in which it’s made. The technology that goes into making an episode of South Park is much less complex than most forms of animation and thus the creators can produce an episode much faster than the average show. This allows them to keep up to speed with current events that are fresh in people’s minds and insult individuals/groups when it will sting the most. Because of this, the show is no stranger to controversy. I would be shocked to find out that these threats that Parker and Stone have received from this Muslim group are the first threats they have ever received in regard to their show’s material. They probably receive threats all the time from people who take things on television a little too seriously and get way too offended by the actions and words of animated fictitious characters. This Muslim group has probably already threatened them before, since this recent episode certainly does not mark the first time the show poked fun at Muhammed (see the “Family Guy” episodes of South Park if you are not familiar). I honestly wish Comedy Central wouldn’t censor the show and just let it air as is. If other religious groups got this offended every time South Park poked fun at them, Parker and Stone would be dead by now, no question. Hopefully, these terroristic types of threats won’t stop these geniuses from satirizing all people equally or quell their creative sarcasm. But, since nothing has ever really scared them off before, I would be surprised if it did now.

I think this is an interesting question and a topic that does not really get much attention. A lot of focus is put on the need most women feel to conform to society’s demands, and rightfully so. There is no doubt in my mind that due to the influence of peer pressure, media attention, and societal demands that women are pressured to conform much more than men are. However, men also experience this phenomenon. Men have to deal with increasing pressures in regard to not only their appearance, but also their demeanor and what constitutes acceptable male behavior.

In terms of appearance, men are under more pressure than ever to sculpt their bodies into the mold that the media tells us is ideal. Being a man myself, and a skinny one at that, I find it frustrating that my body type is not what most would consider to be desirable. Although most people would consider me to be someone in relatively good shape, I usually hear from people that I’m “too skinny” and people seem to think that I’m probably weak. I find it frustrating that although I’m in shape, my body is still not good enough for most people. It seems that in order to be a “real man” according to today’s societal standards, you need to be muscular and strong. Some people think that anyone can achieve this by working out and eating healthy, but it’s not that easy for all of us. I’ve tried just about everything I could ever think of to try to gain weight, from weight training to binge eating, and pretty much nothing works. My metabolism simply will not allow me to gain weight from ingestion, and the amount of weight training I would have to do to add on pounds of muscle is ridiculous. Although I feel like I should be happy with my body build and have nothing to be ashamed of, other peoples’ expectations often leave me wishing that I was bigger and stronger.

Men also are expected to behave in ways that coincide with being masculine and strong. I am the type of guy who is sensitive and sometimes emotional. However, a lot of times I find myself bottling up my emotions and showing less compassion for people than I would like to simply because I worry that people will think of me as less of a man for it. Men in today’s world are expected to not wear their emotions on their sleeves and to be emotionally callous. It’s amazing how often it seems that girls end up not being attracted to me because I’m “too nice” or “too good of a friend” to them, and how often I see guys who treat girls like absolute garbage have the greatest success with women. It’s really messed up how both men and women are forced to conform just because of others’ expectations.

I think it is absolutely wild and absurd that a video game in which the central focus is rape is coming out into the market. It seems like some sort of sick turn for humanity to take. I feel like this is one of the few examples of a new form of technology that will actually promote de-evolution. It’s like the human race has found an incredibly new low in terms of animalistic, brutal entertainment. Soon enough we may be back to watching human beings murder each other in coliseums for sheer sport. I mean honestly, a rape video game? It sounds like the beginning a very bad, very politically incorrect joke. How can such a brutal and terrible act be glorified in such a way by anybody? I’m just more shocked than anything. I never thought I would see the day where such a game would be allowed to be made in any society on earth. I’m especially surprised that this game is the result of Japanese development. Sadly, I would have initially assumed that this was an American concept if I had heard about it from a different source. It just seems like more of an American style to make something so controversial and graphic. When I think of the Japanese culture, I usually think of it being more conservative and civilized than that of America. It’s amazing how much enjoyment a game like this could bring to gamers. Anything new and edgy is sure to sell in the videogame industry…but the question is, can anyone who plays such a game not be considered a danger to society? Or at least mentally unstable? I mean honestly, who wants to simulate rape in any medium?

Arguments can be made that a game such as this is no better or worse than a game like Grand Theft Auto, which encourages mass violence, thievery, and prostitution among other things. However, I see a game like Grand Theft Auto as a game of missions and objectives. The violence is usually a means to an end (following a storyline where your character needs to use violence to complete his “missions”) and while extraneous violence is an accessible part of the game, it can’t really be said that it is encouraged (violent acts lead to police chases, which pretty much always lead to either the character’s death or arrest). In this rape game, how could the rape possibly be a reasonable means to an end? Are there rape missions your character must go on? It seems to me that although both games encourage horrifying activities, Grand Theft Auto is far less threatening to today’s youth because it is not as sadistic or pointless. Then again, I could just be reflecting the influence that society as a whole has had on me. Since I have been exposed to graphic violence through entertainment mediums and the media much more than rape, I see it as not being as bad. But in reality, it’s not as if murder is better than rape, right? All in all, this post caused me to reflect on the influence video games can have and how far the limits of public tolerance of explicit video games can be pushed. It seems those limits are going to be stretched as far as possible with a game like this.

I found this article to be very interesting. Maybe I am just naive or I am not well educated in the subject, but these population demographics surprised me. Of course, everyone knew that eventually the amount of people of color in the United States would grow to exceed the amount of whites. It is inevitable given the fact that individuals of differing races have been reproducing together at a rate that is exponentially larger than it has ever been in our country. I was just sort of caught off guard at how soon the experts say the scales could begin to shift. 2050??? I didn’t think that the change in majority would occur anywhere close to within my lifetime. I guess I thought it was going to be a more gradual process, but given how many “minorities” currently live in our country, and how many different types of people there are in America, I suppose I should have realized that it would not take very long. Being a white person, I can honestly say that I, in no way, shape, or form, find this to be alarming. Why should it be? It’s about time the playing field got leveled in our country. I think it is a very positive thing for our country because even though we have done a lot to overcome our issues with race relations, there is still a long way to go. If white people are not the majority anymore, we will be forced to confront racial issues even more because the people of our nation will demand it.

There is nothing for white people, or people of any kind, to be concerned about. It essentially means nothing. So there are more colored people than white people now…who cares? It’s not like white people are going to end up being oppressed or discriminated against. And it’s not as if white people will be “losing power”; this isn’t a team game where the race with the most players wins. It is truly nothing more than a statistic, a percentage that reflects how the majority of our population looks. And not even specifically…it’s not as if the black population is overtaking the white population, or any other specific race in itself is going to outweigh the Caucasians. It’s just stating that collectively, there will be more colored people than white people. Which, in my opinion, is the image our country should reflect. We consider ourselves a cultural melting pot, a land of opportunity where people from all over the world flock to start a new, American life. Many of the people who come here from other countries are not white. Many of the people who have been here for generation after generation are not white. So, I see this whole thing as being not only interesting, but also exciting and something that should be embraced.

Let me start off by saying that I understand where Sam is trying to come from with the whole menstrual cycle metaphor. He sees it as a way of making an analogous comparison to our hesitancy to talk about other subjects that make us uncomfortable (race issues, etc.). However, I have to say I think he is a little off base with this whole comparison. I don’t really understand why it is that he thinks that the two issues are so similar. I feel that almost no one feels as uncomfortable talking about race as they do about menstruation. And although I am a man, I think that even from a woman’s perspective, race is much easier and less awkward to discuss than such a private bodily function. I agree with Sam in that because it is a natural process, women should not have to feel ashamed or embarrassed of it occurring or being brought up. However, going to the bathroom and vomiting are natural processes too, and it is generally not considered appropriate to discuss either openly when unnecessary. And I feel that in regard to menstruation, it is not usually a feeling of shame or embarrassment that keeps women from discussing it. It is the fact that, like vomiting and defecating, it is a pretty disgusting bodily function. Sorry to be that guy, but that’s just how it is. I don’t really think there are any other factors that contribute to it. Even if it were socially acceptable to openly discuss one’s menstrual cycle whenever one pleased, I still doubt that most women would want to. As much as I love Sam and his ability to push our buttons with metaphors like this, I think he’s trying a little too hard on this one.

In regard to the question asked on the video, I feel that most men are at least fairly well educated about women’s menstrual cycles. While women are obviously a lot more familiar with the process, most men definitely know at least as much as they need to about the process (if not more). I think it’s pretty unfair to generalize men in such a way and say that we don’t know anything about it. I would venture to say that after going through high school classes, all of us know what we need to know about our own sex organs and those of the opposite sex. As I said before, I don’t think that the lack of discussion about menstruation has anything to do with gender differences or shame. It is simply a consensus between the sexes that it is something that neither would like to discuss in great detail. We all know if happens, we’re all okay with it, so let’s just let it be.

Whether or not a female head football coach will be a successful experiment is yet to be determined. However, it is a historic move in the world of sports that is sure to have the attention of the nation for the foreseeable future. I hope that she is able to find success, but I feel like it will be difficult for her. It is not so much that she is a woman, but the fact that she will have to deal with so much attention from the media and will be under a tremendous amount of scrutiny may cause her to become overwhelmed with the task. There will be many that will doubt her. Although she says she doesn’t go out and try to prove other people wrong, she may feel compelled to with all the doubt she is sure to face. Being the first to try to break a barrier of any kind (racial, sexual, gender, etc.) is a daunting task. In addition to the pressure she is sure to put on herself, she will feel the pressure of essentially having to go out and represent her entire sex.

However, there is no doubt that she could be successful. She seems to be very confident in her ability to be the strong leader her team needs her to be. Confidence in itself is a very valuable weapon for a coach to have. In order for your team to believe in you, you must believe in yourself. And unlike most women, she has experience in the sport. She actually played football competitively herself and can understand the in-game experience and relate to her players in that way. I feel that this is essential for any coach. No matter how much strategy one knows, if they haven’t played the game at a competitive level themselves then they can’t really give their players any advice from the appropriate perspective. She doesn’t seem to be just a woman out to prove a point, on a mission to prove that anything men can do, women can do. She seems to really want this for the right reasons, because she has a real passion for it. It could be good for women’s sports to have a new crossover figure like this. Unlike someone like Danica Patrick, who seems to just be involved in a male-dominated sport for the attention it will bring her and the endorsement opportunities it will provide her with, someone like Natalie Randolph can show that there is a place for women in these sports. Even though she isn’t coaching at a professional level, this is still a very big day for women in sports. Time will tell if Randolph has what it takes, but it should be exciting to watch.

I thought that this was a really great question. It really is true that lesbians are looked upon in a different light than gay men in our society, despite the fact that there is no greater difference between the two than there is between any man and woman. Why is it that lesbians are often viewed in a way that could even be considered positive, whereas there is more of a stigma associated with gay men? I, like many of those that posted before me, think that one of the main reasons for this double standard can be tied into the porn industry. Maybe not even the porn industry itself, but into the difference in sexual desires between men and women. Straight women that view pornography will almost undoubtedly be viewing straight, male/female material. While logic would indicate that the same would be true of straight men, this is not necessarily the case. Many men are aroused by the idea of two women being together sexually, and thus there is a considerable market for lesbian porn in the straight male demographic. The inverse of this situation does not seem to be the same. While straight men often find homosexual women attractive, most straight women are not aroused by gay men. So, while there is a large market for male/female and female/female pornographic materials, there is not nearly as large of a market for male/male materials because the gay male demographic is the only population to which such materials are appealing. Thus, a double standard exists because of the differences in sexual tastes between men and women.

Another reason for the existence of such a double standard is the balance of power in our society and who controls the majority of public opinion. In relevance to this issue, we can break down the population into four major categories: straight men, straight women, homosexual men, and homosexual women. Most people would probably agree with the notion that of these four groups, straight males have the greatest influence in our society. Additionally, of the four groups, one could make the assumption that straight males are also the least sympathetic towards the gay community. Although logic would indicate that straight men are no less sympathetic than straight women since they have a shared sexuality, women tend to be more understanding and emotionally cognizant of other people. Although they are not of the same sexual orientation, straight women are much more likely to be sympathetic towards homosexuals and are less likely to find their lifestyle “disturbing”. But since straight men have the majority of the influence in society, and they are much more likely to find gay men disturbing than gay women, it seems understandable that lesbians often do not catch as much heat as gay men do. It certainly doesn’t make it acceptable, but that could be an explanation of the mystery behind this double standard. Whatever the reasons, the existence of this double standard is really unfair and should be investigated more so that we can try to determine what the causes are and how to repair it.

The issue of welfare coverage in the United States is one of great complexity and has been debated throughout society for a considerable amount of time. While some people view welfare as a way for “lazy” people to “cheat the system” and not work as hard as everyone else, others see it as a way for those without opportunity or that were born into destitution to be able to sustain life and obtain the bare essentials needed to survive. While there is no true “right” answer in this situation, I believe that people such as South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer are taking an inhumane stance on the issue. Bauer’s analogy comparing those on welfare to “animals” is atrocious and unwarranted. For a prominent political figure to come out and say that people in such unfortunate situation are somehow in the wrong is mind-boggling. For him to say that such people are lesser than human is an abomination. Mr. Bauer is making a very broad generalization in presuming that the majority of people on welfare are somehow on it by choice, or that they are taking advantage of the system. Does he realize how absurd that sounds? How is it in any way logical to think that almost anyone on welfare is living that way by choice? No one in America dreams of being able to get by on welfare for the rest of his or her life. In all likelihood, Mr. Bauer has probably never been remotely poor at any point in his life and has no idea what it is like for people who are and have the misfortune of needing to be on welfare. As the article stated, the majority of people covered by welfare are children. Are they in any way responsible for the situation into which they were born? Does he think they want to be poor? Does he think that they are “animals” manipulating a system designed to help people? If he does, this man clearly has mental health issues.

It is far too often that we hear stories such as these, where a politician has his or her views so out of whack that it is alarming to think that such a person was elected by his or her peers into public office. If Mr. Bauer does not support welfare because he thinks it is a flawed system and he has valid evidence to back up his argument, then that’s fine. In fact, that’s exactly what he should be doing. Politicians should be questioning the way we do things and exploring options to see if there is a better system. But clearly, this man has disdain for those living in poverty and his motives are not just or pure. He feels that people living off of welfare are hindering the rich (such as himself) from getting richer. And even if that’s true, God forbid if those of us who are more fortunate are satisfied with what we have and willing to help people that need it. If we ever hope to achieve equality and peace in our country, or at least as much of it as possible, people like Mr. Bauer need to be weeded out of politics so that the most powerful people in our country aren’t able to act with such twisted, egotistical motives.

I thought this article about the terminology used in the U.S. Census questionnaire was very interesting and insightful. It was interesting to hear about the history of the use of the word “negro” in the census. I did not realize that something as modern as an updated government questionnaire would use vocabulary that I previously thought was considered very outdated. Being a white person myself, I have never had a very good understanding of the connotations that go with the word and whether or not black people consider it to be acceptable or offensive. Therefore, it has been a word that I have avoided because I felt it could be construed as a racist term. I was surprised to learn that a decent chunk of the black population in our country still viewed itself as “negro”. My view on the word is that it is usually associated with the times of slavery, and that most black people would not like to be referred to in terms that slave masters often used in such a derogatory way. However, I guess it is understandable that some older black citizens are able to identify with the term since its connotations were not purely negative in the mid 1900s prior to the post-Civil Rights era. Although I am certainly not the one to determine whether or not the word is acceptable for use in the current times, I believe that the word should remain on the census as long as there are people out there who truly identify themselves through it.

Having said that, I truly believe that we have reached a point in our existence as a nation that we no longer need to be accounting for the race of each individual in our country. Frankly, I think this means of “racial research” does not deter from racial stereotyping/profiling, but actually promotes it. Is there really any need to statistically calculate all the different races present in our country and the percentage of the total population that accounts for each race? The whole idea of concrete distinctions between races and affirmative action only highlight the differences between us instead of the similarities we share. In my mind, America isn’t really living up to its title of the “cultural melting pot” of the world with such a strong focus being placed on race by its government. As discussed in the article, America is among the mere fifteen percent of countries with reporting censuses that use the term “race” in regard to one’s heritage. Race really is such an imaginary concept. If our nation wants to stay aware of people’s national origins in order to determine where we get our greatest influx of immigrants from, that is understandable. However, the time has come to remove race from the census. If we emphasize it less in the census, hopefully this will carry over into everyday life and the issue of race will become less prevalent in our country.

This video was very enlightening and contained a lot of sad realities that I did not realize were so prevalent in the world of professional soccer. Since soccer is the world's most popular sport, I previously believed that it was also its most universal sport. However, it seems that an unfortunately large amount of people around the world, ranging from players to fans to management, do not think of the game as being universal. Rather, they believe that dark-skinned players of African descent have no place in the game. While the expression of such ideas from anyone involved in any American professional sport would warrant severe consequences, this does not seem to be the case in Europe. Although the United States is often looked at as being less "civilized" than European countries, it appears that in this case we are far less outdated than our counterparts across the Atlantic. Fans and players alike seem to be able to express their hateful opinions as openly as they would like with almost no risk of punishment. I was appalled to see that the coach of the Spanish national team could make such hateful remarks about Thierry Henry, a remarkable player and true ambassador of the game, and get nothing more than a $5,000 fine (a mere slap on the wrist). I can't even imagine such a thing happening in American professional sports. Hypothetically, if Bill Belichick got caught calling Donovan McNabb some sort of racial slur before a Patriots-Eagles game, not only would he be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars but he would probably lose his job as well, and rightfully so.

The fact that such open acts of racism still occur in our world is troubling, but that isn't even the most troubling part about the whole situation. The most troubling part is that such open acts can occur in professional sports, a very open public forum with which people of all ages and backgrounds are involved. Thousands and thousands of children are in the stands at all of these games where idiotic, spiteful fans teach them how to be insulting, degrading, and hateful to the opponent rather than giving them the respect they deserve. These hooligan fans who stoop so low to disrespect individuals just because of what color they are should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. The national federations in these European countries must intensify their efforts to rid the game of racism immediately. Any fan caught committing any type of racist act or participating in any type of outward hate should be ejected from the stadium for the game. Any players or coaches that discriminate in any way against dark-skinned players should be given hefty fines and additional suspensions. However, there is only so much FIFA can do to crack down on the racism in European soccer. It is ultimately up to the fans to start having more respect for the game and more importantly, for their fellow men and women of the world. To heckle an opposing player is one thing; such acts happen at every professional sports game that takes place all over the world. However, as the activist in the video mentioned, to heckle someone over the color of their skin is uncalled for and something entirely different than a simple insult. The European fans have the power to rid the game of hate. Now it is up to them to get with the times and accept people for who they are.